View Single Post
02-19-2012, 02:40 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by NYR1967 View Post
I'm not sure I agree - I'm no cap expert, so maybe I'm totally off base with this, but seems to me that trading for Nash means:

Rangers Gain:

Rick Nash @3.6M/YR cap hit

Rangers Lose:



(and possibly)

If we successfully sign Parise as a UFA and then need to trade Dubinsky for cap reasons.

Rangers Gain:

Parise @3.3M/YR cap hit (7.5M/YR minus Dubinsky's 4.2M for argument's sake)
Pick/Prospect gained for trading Dubinsky (arguably a 1st, and I would say at least a 2nd and a 5th - or a comparable prospect)

Rangers also gain by not losing to CBJ:

2012 1st

(and possibly)


Rangers Lose:

Brandon Dubinsky

I could be missing something here - but the second option seems better to me.
Originally Posted by smoneil View Post
Seriously!? It's pretty simple--signing a guy for free means that, IF you need to make a trade, you can get assets back. That way, you get the guy (Parise or whoever) you want AND the return you'd get on the pieces you trade away (and if we're talking Dubinsky, you can be sure that you'd get a 1st and a prospect--the value of the prospect dependent on the location of the 1st). Great player + trade value is better than Great player in exchange for trade value.

Plus, I just think that Parise is a MUCH better fit for the kind of game the Rangers play than Nash could ever be.
You are both missing the point. The point was either way the Rangers are going to need to trade someone in order to sign their RFA's. Just speaking numbers wise not whats a better fit for the team. Cant dispute the math. The math says that -Duby and + Nash = $3.6 million. Keeping Duby + Parise = $11 million. Thats all I was saying. Cant sign Parise and say its not going to cost you assets because the bottom line is whether its now or two offseasons from know its going to cost assets.

JoeRangers is offline